I thought long and surprisingly hard about what the title of this thread should be. I was initially tempted by 'The General', but that is of course a rank here and this thread is not about rank. I considered 'The Team Leader' and while this is a term that is actually used on CC to denote what I am writing about, it has disturbing connotations of the terrible grind of lower management, and that horrendous occupation has nothing to do with my topic at all. But as my mind wandered around my theme and I considered some of its key elements, I became increasingly convinced that 'The Dictator' was the most fitting. For I want to write about the kind of player here (of which I am one) who truly leads his team. The kind of player who, if he or she wants to, can dictate every single deploy, attack, advance and fort. The kind of player who has a team which will implicitly accept this level of direction. I suspect these kinds of players are actually very rare here. My aim in this thread is to demonstrate why this kind of player is such a rare character within this virtual existence I have always called CC Land.

Surely the first order of business for our budding Mao is to actually form their team. This might seem easy enough, but actually it is rather a challenging thing. Let me give you an example: an ambitious new player decides they want to join the ranks of the CC dictators. He invites two other players to join him, selects a suitable map and waits for the opposition to join. Over night they do and as our hero switches on CC and checks his games he finds to his horror that two moves have already been made. Things have already gone terribly, terribly wrong. Why? Because if the team wins our wannabe leader cannot claim the credit, he didn't set the opening. If the team loses, then the leader's record - and this is absolutely key - has taken a hit. Nonetheless, through the first game our man demonstrates a certain amount of domination of chat, he has proven himself at least an important voice in the team. So for the second he makes sure he is there for the opening. He writes his orders. And one of his teammates disagrees. Now what? I simply cannot doubt that CC is littered with the doomed aspirations of failed dictators. Why should anyone listen to you when you write a determinedly exact order? What do you know?

The dictator must demonstrate his ability through his record. The dictator must win, and win consistently. From the very beginning he must win his games at a rate far superior to the average AND he must make his team points. For the explicit bargain between the dictator and his followers is that he must provide profit for them. The dictator actually cares far more about his win percentages, but the followers wants points. Therefore a dictator may win 75% of 30 games and feel rather pleased with himself. But if his team make sod all points from the experience they will consider the dictator to have failed. This is one of the key reasons why it is so difficult to be a dictator. First you must actually consistently win. Always win. In my own case, how many games can I lose in a row before there is some kind of revolt (and remember I have led my team for four years)? Five? Have I built up even that much credit? Five losses will cost my team at least 100 points each. That's 100 points lost due entirely to me. I would predict that by the fifth game one of my 'seconds' would be questioning not just an order (which while incredibly rare happens occasionally) but actually the overall strategy. At that point, my role as the dictator is effectively over. I think few reading this are continuously in that position when they play team games. Only dictators must suffer it. But then dictators get to see every move played out exactly as they desire. That is, believe me, an intoxicating experience. But with that joy comes the downside of never being more than a few games from having it all disappear.

Dictators must teach. There is absolutely no way around this. None. For how can your followers play out your moves exactly if they dont know what you want? The dictator must teach his team how he or she wants them to play. When to attack 4 on 3. When to push harder than the orthodox. When to leave a 2. The team must understand what the dictator would want them to do once the dice start rolling. Orders can only be so convoluted - and the writing of orders is a key element of being a dictator - the team must be able to read the order and as the move develops adapt it in a way the dictator would approve of. The true dictator actually allows the team the freedom to make their decisions as the move develops, but the team is actually thinking in a certain way. That is due to teaching. This is incredibly tricky. And remember the record. Mistakes cost games. Lose a few in a row and you may not be a dictator anymore. Your team's mistakes may have cost the game. But more than likely those mistakes were caused by a kind of intellectual paralysis. One of the dangers of the dictator model is that the follower finds himself in some kind of horrendous mental loop. 'What would I do here? But what would the dictator do? What would the dictator want me to do?' Followers sometimes make mistakes and the cause is trying to interpret what the dictator would want. This is why teaching is so important.

The dictator must set the opening. It is probably his most important role. The advantage of the dictator model is in the consistency of the opening. The good dictator should have worked out rounds 1 and 2 after the first two moves. To be a dictator you must have this capacity. And you must get it right and near enough always. Losses will always come in close mid.games, there is often nothing the dictator can do about that. But losses due to an incorrect opening? That is terminal. All dictators get the opening wrong occasionally. Get it wrong consistently and you won't be a dictator for long. Frankly, that is how you actually lose 5 in a row.

The dictator must of course follow every move. I find this to be incredibly tiring. I am quite incapable of leading more than 4 games at a time and am most comfortable with 2. The dictator must make sure that his orders are on time. The dictator must make sure there are no mistakes. The dictator might well have to be online when a tricky move is played to actually direct it roll by roll. The dictator must do so without demeaning his teammate. The dictator must be omnipresent. Consider how often you have effectively gone missing in a game. You play your turn and that's it. The dictator can never be so lax. The dictator must be there when the game is going horribly wrong. He must motivate his troops. He must be there to make the decision to 'go banzai'. He must commiserate his teammates when things go wrong and when they make mistakes. And he must ruthelessly cut them if they make too many.

Which neatly leads us on to another key aspect of being a dictator. Team management. What is the right combination of individuals for a game? Personally I have grown to prefer a system involving 'seconds' and 'thirds'. My current seconds are manwiththeplan and spazzattack. My thirds? potager1 and spoongod. The second has the role of the advisor. He is often active in chat, making suggestions and trying to spot things the dictator may have missed. Interestingly revolt, when it finally comes, will be from one of the seconds. The seconds actually have the strategic ability to lead a team. Their role is massively important if only because they provide just enough pressure to keep the dictator on his toes. The third should be in general quiet on strategic matters and concentrate on playing their move perfectly. I am a firm believer that 3 active players simply doesn't work within the dictator model. Frankly, it makes the team seem like far too much of a democracy.

Finally, the dictator must care about being a dictator more than rank. How can I lead my team to enduring profit if I am some bloated 3000 plus player? I suspect a better player than I could. Sadly I am not that talented. I keep myself under 2500 and from that score I can make my team points. It is far more important to me to get that buzz of watching my ideas get played out, than to sit on the first page. For as time has passed, my team's ranks have improved. They are now majors and captains, rather than sergeants and lieutenants. As their scores have improved mine have had to fall, to keep our ventures profitable.

What an amazing piece of writing! As a SoC recruit and rookie, I can only marginally grasp the enormity of your essay here, but the way you have with words has totally bowled me over. I will avidly follow anything else you have to say - on any subject!

I do enjoy your posts changsta and I'm glad you're back on here writing them. Do you feel that the dictator is the correct path for team dominance, or do you think a more strategy by committee given that everyone knows what they're doing would work better? Obviously the committee would require a strong enough leader to not get muddled in debate, and this would also require the correct group of people, something no different than your main approach.

Question... if you have this kind of Team, and you play this kind of game regularly...

How is this "fun" for the people under you?

Yes... they may win more... so if someone derives all his/her fun from victory and points... then it would make sense for this sort of person to join your team.

I have played Team games with people who have tried to dictate my every move. It wasn't fun.(Though partially this was due to the Map... which required I do nothing but build troops for umpteen turns, and then hand them over to the "dictator".)(It was a little more fun on a map like World 2.0.)

I am always open to suggestions and collaboration when playing a Team game... but I don't want to be micromanaged.

I suggest that CC would be better-off without these followers... and instead letting you play as Players 1-4 (or 1-2 or 1-3) in a Team game against four other people.

What's the joy to you in being able to dictate or control others??? If you could instead play all Team roles yourself you would never fear a coup... and would have the satisfaction of beating not one opponent, but 2, 3, or 4 "heads". Surely that would be more fun.

jimboston wrote:Question... if you have this kind of Team, and you play this kind of game regularly...

How is this "fun" for the people under you?

Yes... they may win more... so if someone derives all his/her fun from victory and points... then it would make sense for this sort of person to join your team.

I have played Team games with people who have tried to dictate my every move. It wasn't fun.(Though partially this was due to the Map... which required I do nothing but build troops for umpteen turns, and then hand them over to the "dictator".)(It was a little more fun on a map like World 2.0.)

I am always open to suggestions and collaboration when playing a Team game... but I don't want to be micromanaged.

I suggest that CC would be better-off without these followers... and instead letting you play as Players 1-4 (or 1-2 or 1-3) in a Team game against four other people.

What's the joy to you in being able to dictate or control others??? If you could instead play all Team roles yourself you would never fear a coup... and would have the satisfaction of beating not one opponent, but 2, 3, or 4 "heads". Surely that would be more fun.

(... um... so how can I join your Team?)

With regards to the general thrust of your post, may I just say that the OP is a rather murky mix between my own personal experience and my perception of the circumstances other dictators operate under. In my own case, my teams are composed of real-life friends and family (with a few honorable exceptions). I think this point is quite key with regards to your enjoyment issue. My friends and I chat about moves on the phone or in cafes and bars. Chatting about Risk is obviously the third most enjoyable thing in this world after sex and drunk-sex. And of course I always take the opinions of my friends seriously. But the opening is my preserve, my teams are always quiet at this moment. And I do have the final say on every move. So I certainly am a dictator, but I think one who is lucky enough to have a team that is happy for me to be one.

The enjoyment issue IN GENERAL that you bring up is hugely relevant. I have led players from outside my real-life existence, and I have been led as well. So I have some experience of these things. You effectively ask the question 'Why should anyone enjoy being micromanaged?' so this is my answer:

1. They want to learn. This is a fine motivation for joining a dictator though I would just say that the obvious problem here is that one they have learned they are liable to bugger off afterwards.2. They have a naturally submissive character. Some people enjoy being led, they love reading well-crafted orders and trying their best to please the dictator. 3. They enjoy the dictator's style of play. I have always been of the view that the best dictators have a real philosophy of the game. This is often what attracts people to play with them. It is also enjoyable to try and fit your own game to someone else's philosophy.4. They want to focus exclusively on playing their turns, within the orders they are given, to perfection. This is actually no easy thing. 5. Points.

Your final point concerned why the dictator wants to control other people. As you said, wouldn't I be happier to just have control of all the armies directly? I think you miss the enjoyment for the dictator of writing orders. There is a real art to this you know, making your orders well-written and pleasant to read, styling them for each individual player (for different players require different kinds of orders), not making them too convoluted. But also the real joy of being a dictator comes from thinking about the game deeply, writing your orders and then trusting your team can play them out perfectly.

My final point though concerns you. Your rank and the fact that you are obviously smart (from your writing) makes you the cc-equivalent of gold dust for the kind of dictator who does want to have a personal high score. If you are genuinely interested in playing team games you should find a dictator, you should become the 'third' (and just concentrate on playing your moves to perfection) and you should learn. Accept that some do know more about this game than you, don't rile up against orders from afar. Find a top player, stay as quiet as a mouse and play out that player's orders as well as you can. You might find that you enjoy it. There is honor in being the third in a trips team. It is an important role.

maasman wrote:I do enjoy your posts changsta and I'm glad you're back on here writing them. Do you feel that the dictator is the correct path for team dominance, or do you think a more strategy by committee given that everyone knows what they're doing would work better? Obviously the committee would require a strong enough leader to not get muddled in debate, and this would also require the correct group of people, something no different than your main approach.

I am interested to see if any player from the 'all high-ranking democratic ideal' kind of teams will stop by and give their views on this. The kind of teams who often say 'we play silently'. Personally I have always felt that the weakness of those teams might well be in the consistency of the opening, the ability to form up destructive chained stacks in the early game and the capacity to abandon orthodoxy when it is required. For sometimes it is.

You however postulated on the committee-led team. In my view that is far from the ideal and you actually brought up the reason why. Either teams play effectively silently and react on the basis of the previous move, or a dictator sets the plays. Three or even four players all giving their ideas between moves seems to be to be a recipe for confusion. As you yourself said, there would be the need for a chairman-style figure to arbitrate. But who sets the opening move? The guy who has the first turn? So many teams I play against have an unfocused round 1. This is directly due to the issue we are writing about here.

Interesting and funny stuff, Mr Changsha! I enjoy your posts. It seems a long time since the forum has been worth reading or posting in.

I suppose I've played on certain teams that would qualify as an 'all high-ranking democracy'. However, in my experience, these aren't silent games. I agree with you that a silent game would be inferior for the reasons you said, and because a strategist type player will look at a game and plan several moves ahead so if there are 3 or 4 players doing this silently then there isn't a consensus or common goals for the game. Dubs might be an exception to this, with a long time and completely trusted teammate.

So much of my style of play depends on who I am teaming with. I very easily fit into your kind of team as a second if I believe 'the dictator' is a better player than I am, or at least as good, and if my ideas and suggestions are seriously considered and sometimes adopted. Even the best players and team leaders need accountability and good teammates provide that. I love the strategic element of the game so I can't picture myself playing a silent role, though I do agree that a teammate who can play their advised turns consistently without errors and variation to what's been proposed is rare, and that it's not an easy thing to do.

In the democratic game with quality teammates it is often whoever gets to the game first, who will point out the nuances of the game and talk about what they'd like to see done. Then, each in turn will give their take before any opening move is made, even if it's only to agree with what's been said. Throughout the game, each player will talk about both his turn and make suggestions for her teammates turns. This is a good way to get lots of ideas and to narrow down which is the best move to make. It sometimes takes compromise but often it doesn't, as long as the team remains open minded to the possibility that their idea might not be the best one. So I disagree with you that this kind of team would necessarily lead to confusion and a losing game. Why do you think lots of ideas and a discussion and reached consensus for the best move would be the wrong approach? For you and other dictator players like you maybe it doesn't work, but it works for the right team.

Mr Changsha wrote:My final point though concerns you. Your rank and the fact that you are obviously smart (from your writing) makes you the cc-equivalent of gold dust for the kind of dictator who does want to have a personal high score. If you are genuinely interested in playing team games you should find a dictator, you should become the 'third' (and just concentrate on playing your moves to perfection) and you should learn. Accept that some do know more about this game than you, don't rile up against orders from afar. Find a top player, stay as quiet as a mouse and play out that player's orders as well as you can. You might find that you enjoy it. There is honor in being the third in a trips team. It is an important role.

Open to trying it... you or any high ranking Dictator wanna send me an invite for a game or two?

jimboston wrote:Question... if you have this kind of Team, and you play this kind of game regularly...

How is this "fun" for the people under you?

Yes... they may win more... so if someone derives all his/her fun from victory and points... then it would make sense for this sort of person to join your team.

I have played Team games with people who have tried to dictate my every move. It wasn't fun.(Though partially this was due to the Map... which required I do nothing but build troops for umpteen turns, and then hand them over to the "dictator".)(It was a little more fun on a map like World 2.0.)

I am always open to suggestions and collaboration when playing a Team game... but I don't want to be micromanaged.

I've only played a few games with Dictator types, and I recall just not being very fond of the gameplay. It was more like the math homework I never wanted to really do when I was young lad, so I tend to kind of line up with JimBoston.

Denise wrote:In the democratic game with quality teammates it is often whoever gets to the game first, who will point out the nuances of the game and talk about what they'd like to see done. Then, each in turn will give their take before any opening move is made, even if it's only to agree with what's been said. Throughout the game, each player will talk about both his turn and make suggestions for her teammates turns. This is a good way to get lots of ideas and to narrow down which is the best move to make. It sometimes takes compromise but often it doesn't, as long as the team remains open minded to the possibility that their idea might not be the best one.

This is sort of how my current regular team functions I'd say. I think one of us will evaluate the board and kind of take a lead in suggesting ideas, but we're all pretty open to alternate strategies and suggestions for another's turns. And it can vary from game to game.

maasman wrote:I do enjoy your posts changsta and I'm glad you're back on here writing them. Do you feel that the dictator is the correct path for team dominance, or do you think a more strategy by committee given that everyone knows what they're doing would work better? Obviously the committee would require a strong enough leader to not get muddled in debate, and this would also require the correct group of people, something no different than your main approach.

I am interested to see if any player from the 'all high-ranking democratic ideal' kind of teams will stop by and give their views on this. The kind of teams who often say 'we play silently'. Personally I have always felt that the weakness of those teams might well be in the consistency of the opening, the ability to form up destructive chained stacks in the early game and the capacity to abandon orthodoxy when it is required. For sometimes it is.

You however postulated on the committee-led team. In my view that is far from the ideal and you actually brought up the reason why. Either teams play effectively silently and react on the basis of the previous move, or a dictator sets the plays. Three or even four players all giving their ideas between moves seems to be to be a recipe for confusion. As you yourself said, there would be the need for a chairman-style figure to arbitrate. But who sets the opening move? The guy who has the first turn? So many teams I play against have an unfocused round 1. This is directly due to the issue we are writing about here.

I agree with Mr C on this point. As so often, cc can reflect real life in more ways than are obvious. In any team there has to be some one who is comfortable with decision making and is relaxed with carrying the can if everything goes pear shaped. The issue, as in real life, is that often, there are false dictators who will talk the talk, but don't walk the walk when things get tough. As for decision by committee??? Yer avin a larf.

Having given my opinion on the previous point, I want to take this a stage further. Often, the Dictator will also be the person who can turn a game round when it looks shaky. This person will have the capability of seeing more facets of the situation than pretty much everyone else. However, it is often at this point, the 2ic (second in command for those with no military background or knowledge) will show their real worth, pointing out the weak points in a plan of action. This brings huge benefits it that it allows the Dictator to then review the possibilities freed from the confines of worrying whether they have managed to think it all through to the best advantage. Once again, as is often found in real life, the Dictator will have that clever chap/female by their side who is (often) actually cleverer that them, but it is the Dictator who can, often through force of character, take those good thoughts and ideas and ensure they are put into action in the best possible way for all concerned. Which brings me neatly to the next point I want to make. As, once again, in real life, the true Dictator knows when to stamp their authority but also knows when to look to that vital 2ic for advice, thoughts and feedback. I actually prefer to call this personality the 'benign Dictator'. I am fully cognisant of the ultimate downfalls of the pure Dictator types I have seen on cc. One last point about my 'benign Dictator'. This character will always be aware that others may not see what they see, and will often be asked why they have made a certain decision. As in real life, it is that skill of explanation, teaching if you will, that marks them out as the real deal.

It is also of great interest when two 'benign Dictators' get together. I have seen this at work in a triples game. The human interaction, even through this medium, is startlingly akin to real life...once more. This developed to the point that the third member of the team, a Sergeant, (the other 2 were Generals) popped a note in asking if wine and refreshments were required while discussion took place between the other two (very respectfully) as to the best play. The game was won in a trice, unsurprisingly. The Sergeant admitted to having difficulty understanding the logic behind certain moves but stated that he had learnt a huge amount by just being 'on the team'.

Referring right back to the point about 'how many games can be lost before the questioning may begin', once again, one only has to look to real life to see the reflection of this. A good CEO, General etc. will always know that there is a chance things may go wrong. The key is in the ability to have a complete grasp of risk awareness. Only by having this skill (being able to weigh up the odds from all the information in front of them, often including input from that 2ic) can a benign Dictator ensure those occasions are rare enough that the loyalty they enjoy remains strong. Conversely, the pure Dictator will rely totally on themselves, not seeing that by not paying heed to advice from well chosen quarters they are ultimately sowing the seeds of their own destruction.

Due to current economic conditions the light at the end of the tunnel has been turned off

maasman wrote:I do enjoy your posts changsta and I'm glad you're back on here writing them. Do you feel that the dictator is the correct path for team dominance, or do you think a more strategy by committee given that everyone knows what they're doing would work better? Obviously the committee would require a strong enough leader to not get muddled in debate, and this would also require the correct group of people, something no different than your main approach.

I am interested to see if any player from the 'all high-ranking democratic ideal' kind of teams will stop by and give their views on this. The kind of teams who often say 'we play silently'. Personally I have always felt that the weakness of those teams might well be in the consistency of the opening, the ability to form up destructive chained stacks in the early game and the capacity to abandon orthodoxy when it is required. For sometimes it is.

You however postulated on the committee-led team. In my view that is far from the ideal and you actually brought up the reason why. Either teams play effectively silently and react on the basis of the previous move, or a dictator sets the plays. Three or even four players all giving their ideas between moves seems to be to be a recipe for confusion. As you yourself said, there would be the need for a chairman-style figure to arbitrate. But who sets the opening move? The guy who has the first turn? So many teams I play against have an unfocused round 1. This is directly due to the issue we are writing about here.

I agree with Mr C on this point. As so often, cc can reflect real life in more ways than are obvious. In any team there has to be some one who is comfortable with decision making and is relaxed with carrying the can if everything goes pear shaped. The issue, as in real life, is that often, there are false dictators who will talk the talk, but don't walk the walk when things get tough. As for decision by committee??? Yer avin a larf.

Having given my opinion on the previous point, I want to take this a stage further. Often, the Dictator will also be the person who can turn a game round when it looks shaky. This person will have the capability of seeing more facets of the situation than pretty much everyone else. However, it is often at this point, the 2ic (second in command for those with no military background or knowledge) will show their real worth, pointing out the weak points in a plan of action. This brings huge benefits it that it allows the Dictator to then review the possibilities freed from the confines of worrying whether they have managed to think it all through to the best advantage. Once again, as is often found in real life, the Dictator will have that clever chap/female by their side who is (often) actually cleverer that them, but it is the Dictator who can, often through force of character, take those good thoughts and ideas and ensure they are put into action in the best possible way for all concerned. Which brings me neatly to the next point I want to make. As, once again, in real life, the true Dictator knows when to stamp their authority but also knows when to look to that vital 2ic for advice, thoughts and feedback. I actually prefer to call this personality the 'benign Dictator'. I am fully cognisant of the ultimate downfalls of the pure Dictator types I have seen on cc. One last point about my 'benign Dictator'. This character will always be aware that others may not see what they see, and will often be asked why they have made a certain decision. As in real life, it is that skill of explanation, teaching if you will, that marks them out as the real deal.

It is also of great interest when two 'benign Dictators' get together. I have seen this at work in a triples game. The human interaction, even through this medium, is startlingly akin to real life...once more. This developed to the point that the third member of the team, a Sergeant, (the other 2 were Generals) popped a note in asking if wine and refreshments were required while discussion took place between the other two (very respectfully) as to the best play. The game was won in a trice, unsurprisingly. The Sergeant admitted to having difficulty understanding the logic behind certain moves but stated that he had learnt a huge amount by just being 'on the team'.

Referring right back to the point about 'how many games can be lost before the questioning may begin', once again, one only has to look to real life to see the reflection of this. A good CEO, General etc. will always know that there is a chance things may go wrong. The key is in the ability to have a complete grasp of risk awareness. Only by having this skill (being able to weigh up the odds from all the information in front of them, often including input from that 2ic) can a benign Dictator ensure those occasions are rare enough that the loyalty they enjoy remains strong. Conversely, the pure Dictator will rely totally on themselves, not seeing that by not paying heed to advice from well chosen quarters they are ultimately sowing the seeds of their own destruction.

Denise and Fruitcake gave us all a lot to think about in their posts. What immediately struck me was the issue of responsibility. In most cc command structures each individual player is in the end responsible for their own moves, in that no matter the level of discussion once the 'begin turn' button is pressed you are responsible for your tactical and strategic decisions. How are these decisions reached? By a process of achieving consensus? In that case responsibility is shared. An interesting concept. Is there a wide ranging discussion, but each player must in the end decide for themselves? Of course in the dictator model (and fruitcake has now introduced these concepts of benign and true dictators) responsibility is explicitly in the hands of the dictator.

This can be seen in how both fruitcake and I write about this issue. There is an unashamed egotism (and I don't mean that in a particularly negative sense) displayed in our writing. When leading teams we 'carry the can'. We decide when to make use of 'the second', but we absolve such a person of any overall responsibility. Most importantly I think the win (or loss) is due to the dictator. I know in my games with fruitcake as a second - and I've always tried to fulfill that role properly - that I have at times had a great influence on the result. Yet I know that those wins or losses are still his preserve. He chose to make use of me, therefore it is his victory or loss. I would imagine that many would be uncomfortable in this kind of situation. Would Denise be happy as a second knowing really that no matter the level of her input her role is still FAR below the first? Personally I have no problem with it. I enjoy being the second every once in a while, it is frankly tiring being a dictator.

What's the difference between a dictator and a benign dictator? I would say that both Fruitcake and I are of the benign variety in that we are quite prepared to follow another's strategy for a round or so if it is well though out. One must assume the dictator would take it as something of an affront to have their second propose anything more than a tactic. However, I would suggest this has more to do with whether the dictator is a true alpha or actually a beta personality. If one has confidence in their intellect, then the rope can be slackened without fearing one's authority has been usurped. Nonetheless, I don't feel these distinctions between dictators and benign dictators are actually of the upmost importance. As I said, I feel they are merely related to personality type. Why? Because to me the key is about whether players have responsibility for their own moves. Both types of dictators take that responsibility away from the team. In this key element they are the same. Therefore the difference is simply between a confident and an unconfident dictator, rather than a separate command model.

I would like to bring to fruitcake's attention what I felt was one of the key issues of my OP, the link between the dictator's pursuit of win percentages and the team's desire for points. I suppose one would hope that the dictator could find partners who had an equal regard for percentages. However, I reject this proposition as while the team are sharing in those, the actual responsibility for the win is due to the dictator. Therefore, the team can surely not take great pride in those results. Hence my determination that the dictator MUST provide points for his team to keep the team together. My point here of course is that if the dictator has a whopping great points total he will struggle to make points for anyone, unless he play with terribly low ranks. Yet of course there are dangers in playing with such players, no matter how well-meaning they may be. It seems to me that the logical conclusion is that the extremely high-ranked dictator must limit his gaming to, in the main, clan-wars. For here the team has another goal higher than mere points. They desire to WIN THEIR CLAN GAMES, to not let the side down etc etc. Here the high-ranked dictator can keep his team together (for example I play as a second for Fruitcake in BpB games). But I think in public games the dictator with a very high rank would struggle to keep his team together no matter his win percentages, as the team wouldn't be making any points.

Very well written Mr. C, I think you are on to something here greater than just a dictator personality. What would be interesting is a psycho-analysis of the types of team players on CC in general, but that would be its own article. In terms of dictatorship I can only find myself to be marginally successful due to constraints on time, game load, natural ability ect. Do I only put myself in that role in certain conditions though I may have the ability to perform dictatorship duties in other areas as well

Crazyirishman wrote:Very well written Mr. C, I think you are on to something here greater than just a dictator personality. What would be interesting is a psycho-analysis of the types of team players on CC in general, but that would be its own article. In terms of dictatorship I can only find myself to be marginally successful due to constraints on time, game load, natural ability ect. Do I only put myself in that role in certain conditions though I may have the ability to perform dictatorship duties in other areas as well

I have actually written a few of these already (such as an analysis of a feudal player, an escalating standard player, the all-rounder) but they are deposited in the BpB forum. If one included all the various gaming/personality types one can find on CC - rather than just team players - one would be facing a small book. I do feel that Risk as a game needs this kind of analysis, its great strength compared to other strategy games is the emphasis on psychology rather than just raw intellect. CC does indeed mirror life. I have the vague aspiration to try and write more of these - I am intruiged by writing up 'the second' and 'the third', but as always there is always the danger that laziness intervenes in one's best laid plans..

AndyDufresne wrote:I've only played a few games with Dictator types, and I recall just not being very fond of the gameplay. It was more like the math homework I never wanted to really do when I was young lad, so I tend to kind of line up with JimBoston.

How many banana's will I need to bring to make you a willing underling? Before you name your price, keep in mind 1 banana will be deducted for every mistake you make and for every time you try to think for yourself.

In seriousness, I bet most players agree with you. It's not easy for a dictator to find his team. He must find players who are competent and willing. Most players want to be in charge of their own games, or at least have an equal say in how a game is played out. They care less for a game being played to perfection than they do for their own sense of control over their game. If these players find themselves in a game with a dictator, they become resentful and angry at him, not understanding that there is nothing wrong with how the dictator chooses to play his game. It's just not for them.

It is equally as hard to find a competent dictator, for players that do enjoy being part of a perfectly played game. Fruitcake and Mr. C have talked about some of the challenges of being a dictator, which I agree with. It takes commitment, a lot of time, and brings a lot of frustration. The dictator must also be a very good player. There is nothing more frustrating than being on a team with someone who thinks they are in charge, but can't see what the right moves are. I would much rather be on a team with players where all have an equal footing and are open minded to the possibilities. In this case, most games can be won, dice willing.

For me personally, I like variety and a steady diet of being on only one kind of team or another isn't for me. I love aspects of both. Being in charge (or on equal footing) prevents me from becoming lazy and dependent, and I do understand that thrill that comes from leading a team to victory based on my own excellent skills (in my own mind at least). Being on a team with a dictator is also thrilling because there is usually stuff to learn, and it's fun to watch a perfect game being played out. It's also somewhat a relief on those rare occasions when I decide making dinner for the family should take precedence over strategizing all my ongoing games.

In short, I like winning. If I can be an important part of a team that is being led by a competent player, dictator or not, then that's great. If I must take on more of the responsibilities of leading or am just on a team of good players working things out together, I enjoy that too.

Mr Changsha wrote:Would Denise be happy as a second knowing really that no matter the level of her input her role is still FAR below the first?

I might be more happy with it if I was flattered into thinking my role was important in it's own right, and just a little below the first. Dictators aren't the only one's with ego's, you know!

AndyDufresne wrote:I've only played a few games with Dictator types, and I recall just not being very fond of the gameplay. It was more like the math homework I never wanted to really do when I was young lad, so I tend to kind of line up with JimBoston.

How many banana's will I need to bring to make you a willing underling? Before you name your price, keep in mind 1 banana will be deducted for every mistake you make and for every time you try to think for yourself.

What is this, more math homework?!?

Denise wrote:In seriousness, I bet most players agree with you. It's not easy for a dictator to find his team. He must find players who are competent and willing. Most players want to be in charge of their own games, or at least have an equal say in how a game is played out. They care less for a game being played to perfection than they do for their own sense of control over their game. If these players find themselves in a game with a dictator, they become resentful and angry at him, not understanding that there is nothing wrong with how the dictator chooses to play his game. It's just not for them.

(Emphasis, mine)

I think you sum things up pretty eloquently.

Denise wrote:For me personally, I like variety and a steady diet of being on only one kind of team or another isn't for me. I love aspects of both. Being in charge (or on equal footing) prevents me from becoming lazy and dependent, and I do understand that thrill that comes from leading a team to victory based on my own excellent skills (in my own mind at least).

Agreed, I think it is often fun to play both roles in different games.

My experiences with regards to playing with dictators are quite slim, but I have to say, even though I mostly enjoy playing my own game and making my own decisions in games, there's a certain attraction to being in a team of a very competent leader. When I was last in a 2.1 quads game with Fruitcake, it was like watching an unstoppable avalanche... it was like watching a skilled magician, you know there's a trick to what he does, but it still looks amazing.

I think I have more or less along the same line of thought as Denise. Sometimes it is just fun to take a free ride every once in a while and watch a game unfold (or in a clan game where I use myself as a filler with other people that know the map well), while most of the time I like being on near the same level as anybody else. I usually try to offer up thoughts every turn and if somebody has an idea different, then I have them "convince" me why I should go about things there way. Most of the time I am willing to budge if they explain their position. Then of course every once in awhile, I'll play trips on Battle for Iraq, then everyone should bow down and listen to my benevolent wisdom.

Mr Changsha wrote:....I would like to bring to fruitcake's attention what I felt was one of the key issues of my OP, the link between the dictator's pursuit of win percentages and the team's desire for points. I suppose one would hope that the dictator could find partners who had an equal regard for percentages. However, I reject this proposition as while the team are sharing in those, the actual responsibility for the win is due to the dictator. Therefore, the team can surely not take great pride in those results. Hence my determination that the dictator MUST provide points for his team to keep the team together. My point here of course is that if the dictator has a whopping great points total he will struggle to make points for anyone, unless he play with terribly low ranks. Yet of course there are dangers in playing with such players, no matter how well-meaning they may be. It seems to me that the logical conclusion is that the extremely high-ranked dictator must limit his gaming to, in the main, clan-wars. For here the team has another goal higher than mere points. They desire to WIN THEIR CLAN GAMES, to not let the side down etc etc. Here the high-ranked dictator can keep his team together (for example I play as a second for Fruitcake in BpB games). But I think in public games the dictator with a very high rank would struggle to keep his team together no matter his win percentages, as the team wouldn't be making any points.

First, I've been immensely learning from the heavy-hitting posts of this thread, so thanks everyone for contributing.

Second, in the above paragraph and generally throughout this thread, it sounds like you're describing not a dictator, but a captain of a pirate ship. The Pirate Captain is analogous to the OP; whereas, the Dictator is not.

From what I've read about Caribbean pirates, the captains were generally "benign dictators," some of whom were also harsh enforcers; however, the key to maintaining control was a tempered inclination to the advice of his seconds and also the ability to maintain profits for the crew (or points, in this case). Without maintaining the balance, the pirate captain was bound to fail, and this description of the pirate captain fits precisely your "dictator." Nevertheless, the real dictator enjoyed much greater chances of survival by dispersing the costs of his follies onto the governed through very different means, and this is hardly analogous to your "dictator," as shall be explained.

If a captain proved too demanding or unjust, and if his harsh rule was not offset by the marginal benefits (e.g. plenty of booty), then the captain would be threatened by mutiny, or if at port, desertion. In your case, mutiny is representative of people opting for another 1ic, and desertion is represented by your followers voluntarily leaving your command (or team/ship). The capability for the crew to overthrow the captain or to "vote with their feet" provided the captain the proper incentive to align his interests with his crews' interests.

The dictator faces different constraints and incentives than the pirate captain and the "dictator" of your OP. The real dictator enforces his rule by control over the military, which stomps out the incentive which would have aligned the interests of the dictator with the interests of the subjects. The dictator can simply beat down dissent with his army of goons--and usually gets away with it, more so than the pirate captain, because the costs of overthrowing a dictator are vastly greater than overthrowing one captain and his fraction of loyal mates. The dictator hides behind his armies and fortifications; the pirate captain has a gun and sword, and so did his loyal mates, and so did the dissenters.

So, the incentives of the pirate captain are analogous to your "dictator," while the incentive of the real dictator in no way matches your title. Furthermore, the difference in the means may seem irrelevant to CC, but since the costs of resisting/deserting the pirate captain are closer to your "dictator" model, then this paragraph supports the pirate captain analogy more so than the significantly costlier dictator analogy.

In regarding to teaching, the dictator, and even the benign one, can simply ignore the advice of his seconds and make his fantasies reality (only in his mind) while continuing business-as-usual with little risk of mutiny or desertion, for the people and his 2ic are bound to obey the dictator and his other goons. Saddam Hussein comes to mind. The real dictator fails to teach for his word is truth, always. If anyone says otherwise, they're executed or given an amused smile and then blatantly ignored. This in no way represents the CC "dictator," or rather the CC pirate captain.

Another difference is related to the means of generating revenue. The revenues of the dictator are extracted from his subjects while hardly any revenues (or points) are distributed to the subjects. The dictator sometimes wars with other nations and collects profit, but most of his profit is derived from his people. Does Mr. Changsha extract the points of his teammates? I dare say he doesn't. Granted, "the people" don't apply to the Changsha "dictator" model, but without the people, the dictator analogy falls apart. With the pirate captain, profit is arguably derived from the crew (in the form of a relatively lower salary, or lesser benefits, e.g. food and rum), but in all actuality the profit or points are derived from the conquering of other ships--or CC teams, if you will. In this analogy, there are no governed/people, so the analogy holds more aptly in favor of the pirate captain.

Finally, the pirate captain operates in a competitive market for labor and capital; whereas, the dictator quashes the market and monopolizes the production and distribution of practically everything within his domain. Nevertheless, you may object that your "dictator" does the very same with your team because he controls their production and plots their every move. However, this would be based on a misconception because the pirate captain acts in this very capacity--but only for his ship, i.e. his firm, or "little pocket of socialism" in the market of piracy. The pirate's firm is representative of Mr. Changsha's crew. But still you may press ahead and argue that the dictator has a "firm" which operates in a market of governments, but this would be more analogous to ConquerClub in a market of Risk-based games. With this improper analogy, it follows that the dictator would control whole swathes of CC teams, kick out AndyD and lackattack, and simply force everyone to play rigged games with him and his cronies while effectively preventing the users from easily leaving conquerclub.com.

Therefore, Mr. Changsha, you're not describing the despicable dictator for you are truly describing the commendable Pirate Captain. I imagine that you are a man like me in certain respects. One of our mutual respects may be a quest for knowledge and truth in order to improve ourselves and to willingly lend ourselves as more useful to others. If not, then at the very least, I know you spend a respectable time creating an appropriate title. If I am correct in this judgment, then I humbly recommend you switch to a more appropriate thread title.

Mr Changsha wrote:....I would like to bring to fruitcake's attention what I felt was one of the key issues of my OP, the link between the dictator's pursuit of win percentages and the team's desire for points. I suppose one would hope that the dictator could find partners who had an equal regard for percentages. However, I reject this proposition as while the team are sharing in those, the actual responsibility for the win is due to the dictator. Therefore, the team can surely not take great pride in those results. Hence my determination that the dictator MUST provide points for his team to keep the team together. My point here of course is that if the dictator has a whopping great points total he will struggle to make points for anyone, unless he play with terribly low ranks. Yet of course there are dangers in playing with such players, no matter how well-meaning they may be. It seems to me that the logical conclusion is that the extremely high-ranked dictator must limit his gaming to, in the main, clan-wars. For here the team has another goal higher than mere points. They desire to WIN THEIR CLAN GAMES, to not let the side down etc etc. Here the high-ranked dictator can keep his team together (for example I play as a second for Fruitcake in BpB games). But I think in public games the dictator with a very high rank would struggle to keep his team together no matter his win percentages, as the team wouldn't be making any points.

First, I've been immensely learning from the heavy-hitting posts of this thread, so thanks everyone for contributing.

Second, in the above paragraph and generally throughout this thread, it sounds like you're describing not a dictator, but a captain of a pirate ship. The Pirate Captain is analogous to the OP; whereas, the Dictator is not.

From what I've read about Caribbean pirates, the captains were generally "benign dictators," some of whom were also harsh enforcers; however, the key to maintaining control was a tempered inclination to the advice of his seconds and also the ability to maintain profits for the crew (or points, in this case). Without maintaining the balance, the pirate captain was bound to fail, and this description of the pirate captain fits precisely your "dictator." Nevertheless, the real dictator enjoyed much greater chances of survival by dispersing the costs of his follies onto the governed through very different means, and this is hardly analogous to your "dictator," as shall be explained.

If a captain proved too demanding or unjust, and if his harsh rule was not offset by the marginal benefits (e.g. plenty of booty), then the captain would be threatened by mutiny, or if at port, desertion. In your case, mutiny is representative of people opting for another 1ic, and desertion is represented by your followers voluntarily leaving your command (or team/ship). The capability for the crew to overthrow the captain or to "vote with their feet" provided the captain the proper incentive to align his interests with his crews' interests.

The dictator faces different constraints and incentives than the pirate captain and the "dictator" of your OP. The real dictator enforces his rule by control over the military, which stomps out the incentive which would have aligned the interests of the dictator with the interests of the subjects. The dictator can simply beat down dissent with his army of goons--and usually gets away with it, more so than the pirate captain, because the costs of overthrowing a dictator are vastly greater than overthrowing one captain and his fraction of loyal mates. The dictator hides behind his armies and fortifications; the pirate captain has a gun and sword, and so did his loyal mates, and so did the dissenters.

So, the incentives of the pirate captain are analogous to your "dictator," while the incentive of the real dictator in no way matches your title. Furthermore, the difference in the means may seem irrelevant to CC, but since the costs of resisting/deserting the pirate captain are closer to your "dictator" model, then this paragraph supports the pirate captain analogy more so than the significantly costlier dictator analogy.

In regarding to teaching, the dictator, and even the benign one, can simply ignore the advice of his seconds and make his fantasies reality (only in his mind) while continuing business-as-usual with little risk of mutiny or desertion, for the people and his 2ic are bound to obey the dictator and his other goons. Saddam Hussein comes to mind. The real dictator fails to teach for his word is truth, always. If anyone says otherwise, they're executed or given an amused smile and then blatantly ignored. This in no way represents the CC "dictator," or rather the CC pirate captain.

Another difference is related to the means of generating revenue. The revenues of the dictator are extracted from his subjects while hardly any revenues (or points) are distributed to the subjects. The dictator sometimes wars with other nations and collects profit, but most of his profit is derived from his people. Does Mr. Changsha extract the points of his teammates? I dare say he doesn't. Granted, "the people" don't apply to the Changsha "dictator" model, but without the people, the dictator analogy falls apart. With the pirate captain, profit is arguably derived from the crew (in the form of a relatively lower salary, or lesser benefits, e.g. food and rum), but in all actuality the profit or points are derived from the conquering of other ships--or CC teams, if you will. In this analogy, there are no governed/people, so the analogy holds more aptly in favor of the pirate captain.

Finally, the pirate captain operates in a competitive market for labor and capital; whereas, the dictator quashes the market and monopolizes the production and distribution of practically everything within his domain. Nevertheless, you may object that your "dictator" does the very same with your team because he controls their production and plots their every move. However, this would be based on a misconception because the pirate captain acts in this very capacity--but only for his ship, i.e. his firm, or "little pocket of socialism" in the market of piracy. The pirate's firm is representative of Mr. Changsha's crew. But still you may press ahead and argue that the dictator has a "firm" which operates in a market of governments, but this would be more analogous to ConquerClub in a market of Risk-based games. With this improper analogy, it follows that the dictator would control whole swathes of CC teams, kick out AndyD and lackattack, and simply force everyone to play rigged games with him and his cronies while effectively preventing the users from easily leaving conquerclub.com.

Therefore, Mr. Changsha, you're not describing the despicable dictator for you are truly describing the commendable Pirate Captain. I imagine that you are a man like me in certain respects. One of our mutual respects may be a quest for knowledge and truth in order to improve ourselves and to willingly lend ourselves as more useful to others. If not, then at the very least, I know you spend a respectable time creating an appropriate title. If I am correct in this judgment, then I humbly recommend you switch to a more appropriate thread title.

As always, I enjoy our discussions.-BigBallinStalin

Well, I chose the title 'the dictator' on the basis of to what exent the leader of a team dictates the plays in a game. I actually agree with you that overall (in terms of the relationship between players) the team leader might well have more in common with the leader of some sort of gang, than the leader of a nation. However, this thread is about control of a strategic game and as I feel 'dictate' is the best word to describe what a genuine team leader does - though remember that I rejected that term due to my disdain for lower management - then 'the dictator' seemed the most apt. I would also point out that other contributors have been able to comfortably use the term, though Fruitcake felt compelled to introduce his 'benign dicator' (a distinction I basically reject) in an effort to express his own meaning as well as possible. Further, 'The Pirate Captain' while certainly evocative might have actually confused the message of this thread most terminally, leading to the surely horrendous prospect of various armchair generals trying to decide whether Blitzaholic had more in common with Long John Silver or Jack Sparrow. While this would surely trump the general quality of a GD thread these days, I am still unwilling for my own thread to degenerate in this fashion....

I continue to be fascinated and intrigued by the dynamics of this thing you call team games...I have even joined a team tournament thing to get a better feel for it...Although, after reading this thread I can see that these 2v2 must have far less depth to them than trips & quads.

As for the terms being bantered about... dictator, captain, pirate, and others... these bring to mind a framed print my daughter has in her bathroom which looks like this:

There are players on Conquer Club who are actually far more powerful than 'mere' dictators. Or for that matter generally influential players like Denise. These are the players who manage the clan wars. They, to a greater or lesser extent, decide the combinations of players for numerous games at a time. During a clan war, they might well be monitoring 16 games or more and no doubt in some cases offering advice. It seems to be that we need yet another category of player, we need a term that can describe the kind of player who not only leads his own teams, but is able to influence others teams he is not directly involved in. This kind of player is, I would suggest, very rare indeed.

Is it possible to categorise the various kinds of team players with regards to influence? Well one can always try. So, in ascending order...

1. Random player in an equally random team. Such a player will lack the ability to either control his teammate's tactics or strategy. He is even unable to ensure that his own efforts (forts etc.) will culminate in a desired result.

2. Third under the guiding influence of a dictator. Neither responsible for either the general strategy of the team or even their own tactical moves. Able to suggest strategies that will at least be considered (unlike the poor random), but in practice will rarely do so. On the other hand, the player will be recognized as competent by the cc-world, for the ability to play out orders exactly and make battlefield decisions that will fit the dictator's wishes, is no small thing.

3. Low to mid. ranking reputation in a democratic collective. While this player is in control of their own moves, their capacity to actually influence the collective is more than likely not all that great. In effect this kind of player will still be following orders, for any good move is part of a wider plan. Nonetheless, this player should have more freedom to decide their general tactics than our third. Actually quite a close thing between the two.

4. Second under a dictator. Often able to actually direct a round or two or more, for if the second has the ear of the dictator, their exact strategy can be played out. This is most often seen when things have got sticky and the dictator is looking for ideas. On the other hand, whole games may go by with the second offering little more than tactical suggestions.

5. High ranking reputation in a democratic collective. While our high ranking democrat has control of their own tactics, and will surely have a strong influence on strategy, I am of the view that he or she is still competing with at least one other very strong voice. In a quads for example, it seems to me that such a player would actually see a great divergence from what they would ideally like to see, even within one round. Therefore, while their influence is greater than the second, there would surely be times when the second would leave a bigger footprint on the game. Nonetheless, no.5 has more influence.

6. The dictator. Much has already been said, but I would just reiterate that the dictator has almost complete control over both strategy and tactics, only relatively helpless once the dice are rolling for his teammates, though even then a dictator will often make his presence felt for key moves.

7. The warlord (surely acceptable BBS?) A player of superlative influence. Directing the composition of teams, watching all games his clan are involved in and influential enough to be able to offer strategies to numerous other dictators and high rankers as games are ongoing, these are the now the creme of the cc- crop. How many are there? 10?

Mr Changsha wrote:Well, I chose the title 'the dictator' on the basis of to what exent the leader of a team dictates the plays in a game. I actually agree with you that overall (in terms of the relationship between players) the team leader might well have more in common with the leader of some sort of gang, than the leader of a nation. However, this thread is about control of a strategic game and as I feel 'dictate' is the best word to describe what a genuine team leader does - though remember that I rejected that term due to my disdain for lower management - then 'the dictator' seemed the most apt. I would also point out that other contributors have been able to comfortably use the term, though Fruitcake felt compelled to introduce his 'benign dicator' (a distinction I basically reject) in an effort to express his own meaning as well as possible. Further, 'The Pirate Captain' while certainly evocative might have actually confused the message of this thread most terminally, leading to the surely horrendous prospect of various armchair generals trying to decide whether Blitzaholic had more in common with Long John Silver or Jack Sparrow. While this would surely trump the general quality of a GD thread these days, I am still unwilling for my own thread to degenerate in this fashion....

Very well. Carry on!

"Warlord"?

Eh, <cringes>, yeah, okay, Mr. Dicktator.

(Warlord, Lord of War, it's pretty good in that sense. I thought of "Demigod," but it might be more than they deserve, and it doesn't sound martial enough to me. They could be perceived as the demigods of young, male prostitutes, and we wouldn't want to soil their reputations like that. But maybe they would like to soil themselves in that manner, but who am I to judge?)

Mr Changsha, thank you for this thread. I thoroughly enjoyed reading your posts, and the varied responses your words elicited.

The dictator - a true leader, who can, if desired, dictate every move to the most minute detail, with complete cooperation and acceptance by the rest of the team... How rare is this type of player on CC?

In my experience, extremely rare. And an absolute joy (for me) to play with when I have been fortunate enough to find such a leader. However, the dictator must be a player of extraordinary strategic skill, with the ability to visualize outcomes several turns (and rounds) ahead. Communication is also key, as you have said. It is almost impossible to dictate every nuance of a turn, so the rest of the team must understand the plan, to fit their moves seamlessly into the whole. I don't see this as micromanagement; I see this as creating a masterpiece of fine art, with my contribution being small brushstrokes here and there, adding to and building upon the brushstrokes of my teammates, the organic whole of our joint creation being shaped and directed by the dictator. My enjoyment is derived from being a part of this creation, a part of a well played game, of seeing something unfold that I may not have been capable of creating on my own. Points and rank are (almost) irrelevant to me. The joy of thinking, feeling, being in the flow of the game, seeing the strategy unfold, is what keeps me here. Winning the game is nice, but poor dice can destroy any game. I accept this, and would not look askance at a dictator's less than perfect win record if it was due to the vagaries of the dice.

I also see players on a spectrum, or bell curve; the dictator is at the extreme end of the curve. Many people I play with fit somewhere between evenly balanced 50% alpha/50% beta, and the 100% alpha/dictator end of the spectrum. I am fortunate to team with top players; I can't actually think of anyone I team with regularly who is more beta than alpha. I don't know if this is because of the select group of people I team with, or if this is representative of the type of people who are drawn to CC. (Assuming there is an equal distribution of alpha and beta tendencies among a large random sample of people.)

The strategy for most of my team games is generally arrived at on a cooperative basis, with each player contributing ideas, and the best idea being selected for a given turn. This works well when all players on the team contribute frequently to team chat, are somewhat equally knowledgeable about strategy, and when individual egos can be kept in check. In practice, this is somewhat more challenging than it should be, and when a wanna-be dictator is added to the mix, disastrous. The entire team must have respect for the dictator, must clearly agree that the dictator's strategic vision is either equal to or superior to their own strategic vision, and must be able to willingly and wholeheartedly follow the dictator's lead. I don't know anyone who would follow a dictator simply because they want to be led by an alpha/dom. The relationship must be there, the respect for the dictator's superior strategy must be there. I am not actually all that convinced that the alpha/beta mix of an individual's personality affects the relationship with the dictator. I have seen very alpha personalities follow the lead of a dictator, because the alpha recognized the superior strategic vision of the dictator. Perhaps cooperation with a dictator is based more on the recognition of superior strategy, and the mature willingness to accept another's lead in this situation?

You describe the experience of being a successful dictator as "intoxicating"... Is this because you have controlled the actions of others, or is this because you have organized a group of individual efforts into a harmonious whole? There is imo a world of difference between having an obedient slave obey your every command, vs. a valued member of an orchestra, that you lead/control as the conductor.

You also say that you firmly believe that 3 active players simply do not work within the dictator model.

What is your definition of an active player? How does that player blend with the team? Does that player want a vote in the final result, and have a hissy fit if the play moves in a different direction? That would indeed be disruptive, and likely would lead to frustration for everyone. However, I am a great believer in getting as much input as possible for a given turn. We are all human, even dictators, and you have already acknowledged the value of an active, involved second in command. I think that all players, including the dictator, should be involved in the discussion about a move. Teaching/learning can occur if there is a large difference in strategic ability, catching errors can occur if there is a greater uniformity of skill level. The ultimate authority is the dictator, but why not have the dictator evolve and grow as well, perhaps learning something from the (seemingly) basic question asked by the most beta of teammates?

I respectfully disagree that dictators inherently take responsibility away from the team members. When playing on a team with a dictator, one can certainly simply "take orders" and play mindlessly, but why do that? I guess that could be the player who is only interested in points. That to me is sleepwalking through the CC experience in a near coma. I am 100% agreeable to following the lead of a dictator that I have decided to allow to dictate to me, however, I take responsibility for my moves. Unless I am exhausted or rushed for time, I always look at move strategy, and make my own comments as I see fit. I could care less if the move is done my way or another way, as long as the move is done the "best" way. Perhaps this is why I am fine with playing on a team with a dictator - I have no ego need to be in charge. Does this make me a beta/sub? Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps I have not actually played on a team with a true dictator, having simply encountered super strong alphas?

Fascinating subject - I hope more folks add constructively to this thread!

The dictator - a true leader, who can, if desired, dictate every move to the most minute detail, with complete cooperation and acceptance by the rest of the team... How rare is this type of player on CC?

In my experience, extremely rare. And an absolute joy (for me) to play with when I have been fortunate enough to find such a leader. However, the dictator must be a player of extraordinary strategic skill, with the ability to visualize outcomes several turns (and rounds) ahead. Communication is also key, as you have said. It is almost impossible to dictate every nuance of a turn, so the rest of the team must understand the plan, to fit their moves seamlessly into the whole. I don't see this as micromanagement; I see this as creating a masterpiece of fine art, with my contribution being small brushstrokes here and there, adding to and building upon the brushstrokes of my teammates, the organic whole of our joint creation being shaped and directed by the dictator. My enjoyment is derived from being a part of this creation, a part of a well played game, of seeing something unfold that I may not have been capable of creating on my own. Points and rank are (almost) irrelevant to me. The joy of thinking, feeling, being in the flow of the game, seeing the strategy unfold, is what keeps me here. Winning the game is nice, but poor dice can destroy any game. I accept this, and would not look askance at a dictator's less than perfect win record if it was due to the vagaries of the dice.

I also see players on a spectrum, or bell curve; the dictator is at the extreme end of the curve. Many people I play with fit somewhere between evenly balanced 50% alpha/50% beta, and the 100% alpha/dictator end of the spectrum. I am fortunate to team with top players; I can't actually think of anyone I team with regularly who is more beta than alpha. I don't know if this is because of the select group of people I team with, or if this is representative of the type of people who are drawn to CC. (Assuming there is an equal distribution of alpha and beta tendencies among a large random sample of people.)

The strategy for most of my team games is generally arrived at on a cooperative basis, with each player contributing ideas, and the best idea being selected for a given turn. This works well when all players on the team contribute frequently to team chat, are somewhat equally knowledgeable about strategy, and when individual egos can be kept in check. In practice, this is somewhat more challenging than it should be, and when a wanna-be dictator is added to the mix, disastrous. The entire team must have respect for the dictator, must clearly agree that the dictator's strategic vision is either equal to or superior to their own strategic vision, and must be able to willingly and wholeheartedly follow the dictator's lead. I don't know anyone who would follow a dictator simply because they want to be led by an alpha/dom. The relationship must be there, the respect for the dictator's superior strategy must be there. I am not actually all that convinced that the alpha/beta mix of an individual's personality affects the relationship with the dictator. I have seen very alpha personalities follow the lead of a dictator, because the alpha recognized the superior strategic vision of the dictator. Perhaps cooperation with a dictator is based more on the recognition of superior strategy, and the mature willingness to accept another's lead in this situation?

You describe the experience of being a successful dictator as "intoxicating"... Is this because you have controlled the actions of others, or is this because you have organized a group of individual efforts into a harmonious whole? There is imo a world of difference between having an obedient slave obey your every command, vs. a valued member of an orchestra, that you lead/control as the conductor.

You also say that you firmly believe that 3 active players simply do not work within the dictator model.

What is your definition of an active player? How does that player blend with the team? Does that player want a vote in the final result, and have a hissy fit if the play moves in a different direction? That would indeed be disruptive, and likely would lead to frustration for everyone. However, I am a great believer in getting as much input as possible for a given turn. We are all human, even dictators, and you have already acknowledged the value of an active, involved second in command. I think that all players, including the dictator, should be involved in the discussion about a move. Teaching/learning can occur if there is a large difference in strategic ability, catching errors can occur if there is a greater uniformity of skill level. The ultimate authority is the dictator, but why not have the dictator evolve and grow as well, perhaps learning something from the (seemingly) basic question asked by the most beta of teammates?

I respectfully disagree that dictators inherently take responsibility away from the team members. When playing on a team with a dictator, one can certainly simply "take orders" and play mindlessly, but why do that? I guess that could be the player who is only interested in points. That to me is sleepwalking through the CC experience in a near coma. I am 100% agreeable to following the lead of a dictator that I have decided to allow to dictate to me, however, I take responsibility for my moves. Unless I am exhausted or rushed for time, I always look at move strategy, and make my own comments as I see fit. I could care less if the move is done my way or another way, as long as the move is done the "best" way. Perhaps this is why I am fine with playing on a team with a dictator - I have no ego need to be in charge. Does this make me a beta/sub? Perhaps, perhaps not. Perhaps I have not actually played on a team with a true dictator, having simply encountered super strong alphas?

Fascinating subject - I hope more folks add constructively to this thread!

Is it the raw power I find so intoxicatIng? The opportunity to lead intelligent people into battle with the capacity to intervene in even the most microscopic of decisions? Is it that basic alpha drive for dominance that drives me? Absolutely not. I get no pleasure from the actual ordering around of my friends. I think this is actually proven by the simple fact that I have kept this team together for four years. If I really did get pleasure from bossing them all about like my minions, would anyone think they would have continued to enjoy playing on my team? Of course not.

My team knows that what I find so intoxicating is seeing my strategic vision played out. Few things make me happier and I am extremely lucky to be able to say that I have friends nice enough to help me do that. Your first main paragraph describes that feeling perfectly. Those times in the mid.game when things are looking a bit tricky, and one is able to see 6 moves ahead to prosecute the situation (dice willing), and the orders are written, the moves are played to perfection, and the scene one visualized has transpired...that is intoxication.

As I have written, I see communication is absolutely key. I need to discuss my moves. So many of my best plans have been formed when in conversation. Ideas are thrown out, analysed minutely and finally I will come to a decision. I find it is at these moments that I can most often see furthest into a game. Therefore, my second is most often living close by. The advantage of being able to sit down over a coffee and dissect a move...I am far less of player away from my regular team for that reason.